I took resil: wisdom on my barb

[Sindeloke]

If I had my druthers, I'd make it so that you can have 2 instances of a bonus to a single roll, outside of Ability Mod and Proficiency Bonus (those always count). So, attack might have Magic Weapon, Fighting Style, Flanking, Bless etc. And you can pick any two of them. If you manage to get 5 bonus options, you still pick 2, but you get Advantage on the roll.

I've been playing around with the idea of "you can add one fixed integer and one die roll." So you can have flash of genius and bless on the same roll, but not bless and bardic inspiration, and not flash of genius and aura of protection. It's not as flexible as your "pick any two," but it'd very easy to track. Apart from preserving bounded accuracy, it would theoretically also encourage spreading buffs around.

You'd probably have to do something like 3.path did and give them explicit nonstacking types, though (static and rolled, or w/e). You don't want to be unclear about whether something like Archery Style counts as a fixed integer bonus, or whether shield stacks with a shield. (If things like Archery and shields did count, though, that would help to address certain other concerns you sometimes see on this board.)

[Merlecory]

Kinda late to this party, and back tracking the thread a bit. I have two things Is add in support of Resilient: Wisdom. Making just one more save means that a) you already almost certainly got those two attacks back, and b) you can keep yourself in Rage more easily. A fear affect that makes you flee means you didn't get to make the attacks from your action, and that makes you not mad.

[Skrum]

Kinda late to this party, and back tracking the thread a bit. I have two things Is add in support of Resilient: Wisdom. Making just one more save means that a) you already almost certainly got those two attacks back, and b) you can keep yourself in Rage more easily. A fear affect that makes you flee means you didn't get to make the attacks from your action, and that makes you not mad.

I'm gonna continue to tell myself that and stick with the change, for now.

Most effects that target wisdom will remove the character from combat, or at best severely curtail what actions can be taken. Hitting those saves is pretty important, BUT - they don't come up all the time. In fact, several sessions may pass without needing to make a single wisdom save. And that entire time, having the lower main stat is making the character marginally worse at whatever it is they're doing.

Be slightly better, but occasionally fall on your face, or be slightly worse and fall on your face less often. Honestly put like that...

Each time I think about it I change my mind about which is better.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm gonna continue to tell myself that and stick with the change, for now.

Most effects that target wisdom will remove the character from combat, or at best severely curtail what actions can be taken. Hitting those saves is pretty important, BUT - they don't come up all the time. In fact, several sessions may pass without needing to make a single wisdom save. And that entire time, having the lower main stat is making the character marginally worse at whatever it is they're doing.

Be slightly better, but occasionally fall on your face, or be slightly worse and fall on your face less often. Honestly put like that...

Each time I think about it I change my mind about which is better.

As someone that did his duty and paid his taxes at level 12 by grabbing Resilient (Wisdom), I completely understand.

The thing is, while 5% is minimal, when it's the thing you are doing ALL the time, it will come up. And given that it's like... the one thing Barbarians do and are meant to do very well, it's an annoying choice to have to make. It's a tax, pure and simple.

[Theodoxus]

I've been playing around with the idea of "you can add one fixed integer and one die roll." So you can have flash of genius and bless on the same roll, but not bless and bardic inspiration, and not flash of genius and aura of protection. It's not as flexible as your "pick any two," but it'd very easy to track. Apart from preserving bounded accuracy, it would theoretically also encourage spreading buffs around.

You'd probably have to do something like 3.path did and give them explicit nonstacking types, though (static and rolled, or w/e). You don't want to be unclear about whether something like Archery Style counts as a fixed integer bonus, or whether shield stacks with a shield. (If things like Archery and shields did count, though, that would help to address certain other concerns you sometimes see on this board.)

Your solution is definitely the simpler, while maintaining most of what I was proposing anyway. I'm ok with Archery being counted as a fixed integer; not sure what other fixed bonuses you could stack with it outside of a magic weapon/ammunition, and personally I see those stacking with the Ability Modifier, not really their own thing anyway.
Shield becomes a bit more problematic (and one reason I'd rather it impose disadvantage than be a fixed amount). Since the question is whether it stacks with a mundane shield or not, you have two decent options (and one complicated one) - change it to disad, or have it grant +3 (if using a shield) or +5 if not - so you're never getting more than +5 outside of magical shields. (Which as with weapons, I'm perfectly ok with stacking.) You could even combine them, if you're ok with further complicating combat a bit. If the attacker doesn't have disadvantage, then shield grants disad. If the attack already has disadvantage, shield grants a +3 (or +5) bonus to AC (which will pretty much all but guarantee a miss.

I suppose a fourth option would be to let the shield caster pick which they'd prefer at the time of casting... though I'd definitely keep the +3/+5 version regardless.

[diplomancer]

I'm gonna continue to tell myself that and stick with the change, for now.

Most effects that target wisdom will remove the character from combat, or at best severely curtail what actions can be taken. Hitting those saves is pretty important, BUT - they don't come up all the time. In fact, several sessions may pass without needing to make a single wisdom save. And that entire time, having the lower main stat is making the character marginally worse at whatever it is they're doing.

Be slightly better, but occasionally fall on your face, or be slightly worse and fall on your face less often. Honestly put like that...

Each time I think about it I change my mind about which is better.

SO, this changes from table to table. But in my experience being slightly worse tends to be less deadly than falling on your face, turning on your party, etc.

Though it might feel bad more often. In the end, it's more of a personality decision. Another data point to be considered is how much metagaming the DM engages in. If he now stops trying to target your wis saves and goes after the Sorcerer instead, I'm not sure whether it's a net plus.

[Skrum]

Your solution is definitely the simpler, while maintaining most of what I was proposing anyway. I'm ok with Archery being counted as a fixed integer; not sure what other fixed bonuses you could stack with it outside of a magic weapon/ammunition, and personally I see those stacking with the Ability Modifier, not really their own thing anyway.
Shield becomes a bit more problematic (and one reason I'd rather it impose disadvantage than be a fixed amount). Since the question is whether it stacks with a mundane shield or not, you have two decent options (and one complicated one) - change it to disad, or have it grant +3 (if using a shield) or +5 if not - so you're never getting more than +5 outside of magical shields. (Which as with weapons, I'm perfectly ok with stacking.) You could even combine them, if you're ok with further complicating combat a bit. If the attacker doesn't have disadvantage, then shield grants disad. If the attack already has disadvantage, shield grants a +3 (or +5) bonus to AC (which will pretty much all but guarantee a miss.

I suppose a fourth option would be to let the shield caster pick which they'd prefer at the time of casting... though I'd definitely keep the +3/+5 version regardless.

Question: is stacking bonuses in this way really a problem? I think stacking AC specifically is a problem. Stacking attack and damage bonuses is literally How to Martial, and I'd be very hesitant to curb that for fear of making martial classes worse at one of the few things they're actually good at. Also, tracking bonus types is something I'm glad 5e didn't continue. Stacking saves is like...well there's not many options there, is there?

But, AC I think has some particular offenders that can be addressed directly
1) Shield spell. Yeah this is the worst one
Solution 1: it only applies to the triggering attack. It doesn't last until next turn.
Solution 2: put a cap on how high it can raise your armor (kinda like barkskin does). I like 21
Solution 3: raise the spell level to 3rd

I'm sure there's other ideas. I personally like 2 the most, as it preserves the spell for "intended" use; saving a squashy caster from getting mobbed. But armored casters and gishes can't use it for AC Tower Status.

2) Forge Cleric. Wow this was a poorly thought out domain - but it's cleric, why would it be balanced?
Solution: ehhh I mean I don't want to say ban it because Twilight is sitting right there being way worse, but...I have the perhaps hot take that Forge Cleric is more poisonous to the game. Twilight is broken but it at least is a party-wide buff. It works towards party unity. Forge's only purpose is stacking AC until bounded accuracy breaks in half. The game is not improved by its inclusion.

3) 1 level dips for heavy armor prof
Solution 1: make a new proficiency. Call it Advanced Armor. Advanced Armor is breast plate, half plate, splint mail, and plate. The classes that currently get heavy armor prof gain Advanced Armor proficiency at level 3. A player playing one of those classes doesn't care because they wouldn't be able to afford that armor yet anyway. A caster now has to take 3 levels of those classes to get the best armor.
Solution 2: bring back arcane spell failure. 10% for light, 20% for medium, 30% for heavy. +10% for shield, or 15% for a shield by itself. Give the classes that are expected to cast arcane spells in armor (bard, warlock, artificer, eldritch knight, and arcane trickster) an armored casting proficiency that applies to their own spells only.

Solution 1 is far more appealing to me; 2 just takes a hammer to one of the cooler character options (gish). But it would certainly end tank wizards.

[stoutstien]

As someone that did his duty and paid his taxes at level 12 by grabbing Resilient (Wisdom), I completely understand.

The thing is, while 5% is minimal, when it's the thing you are doing ALL the time, it will come up. And given that it's like... the one thing Barbarians do and are meant to do very well, it's an annoying choice to have to make. It's a tax, pure and simple.

Wouldn't that make the spending opportunity cost for continually improving your strength the tax not the diversifying defenses?

Opie's game coach the little different where they tend to need to max out those things but the system only really considers up to 18 to be normal and 20 exceeding the curve.

If the class only seems to function by dumping all your universal picks into a single ability score, or in the case of barbarian looking at ways to add additional damage riders because the core chassis lacking it, then that's the issue. Well there's a more complex issue where you can't have the same pool of choices at level four then at level 16 and expected them not feel like some free will paradox.

In my opinion the barbarian should be shaking off these types of effects regardless of their wisdom because that's what the class image is. They're not just physically tough they have the ability to endure all types of strength so if a level one spell is just as likely to take you out of the fight at level one than at level 20 something has fundamentally gone wrong.

[Skrum]

Opie's game coach the little different where they tend to need to max out those things but the system only really considers up to 18 to be normal and 20 exceeding the curve.

I don't think that's true

Bringing your main stat up to 20 is pretty clearly a core assumption of the game. Not doing it should only be done for very good reasons. My barb is taking defensive features (infernal con and resil: wis) over offense: he could be sitting on 20 str instead. +2 attack, +2 damage, +2 athletics. My particular character is giving up 7 DPR for those defensive features (49 --> 42)

If the class only seems to function by dumping all your universal picks into a single ability score, or in the case of barbarian looking at ways to add additional damage riders because the core chassis lacking it, then that's the issue. Well there's a more complex issue where you can't have the same pool of choices at level four then at level 16 and expected them not feel like some free will paradox.

I mean, he's still functional. Good, even. He can take a beating, he's got great movement, nearly unbeatable grapple check, and hopefully now he can even hit a wisdom save. And yeah, he can even dish out some punishment. My original post was literally a rant; like I knew he was taking on that 5% worse factor, but I didn't expect it to get thrown in my face in such a dramatic fashion in the very first game. Just felt crummy that those were my choices when like...paladins and clerics exist.

In my opinion the barbarian should be shaking off these types of effects regardless of their wisdom because that's what the class image is. They're not just physically tough they have the ability to endure all types of strength so if a level one spell is just as likely to take you out of the fight at level one than at level 20 something has fundamentally gone wrong.

10,000%

[Dork_Forge]

I may have missed it (though a quick skim didn't turn it up), what is the party composition that you felt like you need Res:Wis anyway?

One of my tables has a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass on less than optimal terms (Minotaur), but he also has a Bard (primarily at least) and Paladin to support him, does your party lack support characters or do you just not want to rely on them?

[Skrum]

I may have missed it (though a quick skim didn't turn it up), what is the party composition that you felt like you need Res:Wis anyway?

One of my tables has a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass on less than optimal terms (Minotaur), but he also has a Bard (primarily at least) and Paladin to support him, does your party lack support characters or do you just not want to rely on them?

Party isn't set; there's multiple DM's and players have multiple characters. So sometimes there might be support, but sometimes not.

But yeah, I also prefer to not rely on those measures (how the heck did paladin get made along side barbarian??)

[stoutstien]

While I agree that the 65 to 70% success rate is a good benchmark, Taking the average AC of the challenge rating table is a fundamentally flawed method. Not only are some CRs practically non-existent the system also doesn't expect you to fight CR equivalent encounters.
It also fails to consider final accuracy rather than just your base attack. Barbarians get reckless attack which is a situationally huge accuracy booster. You'll notice almost all the class options that their main niche is hitting people with sticks they have something to increase their accuracy rather than just maxing their abilities. They also fail the consider intensity and frequency in relationship to the accuracy. My fighter can afford to miss a lot more often than a road because each individual attack is a much smaller portion of their impact.

This means maxing your primary attack stat is used to catch up to the classes that are supposedly have that type of stuff built in via other methods. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way because they failed in taking account basic human psychology and had a series of exceedingly larger numbers with a cap in the cap is going to instinctually be considered the goal. Regardless if they plan for the bill is going to be maxed or not it's a fundamentally flawed design that first removed that progression off the class and then added an "optional" rule to compete with it. It's technically agency but it's done in a way that just feels bad regardless of what you do pick. You either maximize your attack stat and keep with the status quo or fall behind and address a glaring weakness that is also entirely void of choice in and of itself because you don't get to pick when you make STs.

Well it's fun to talk about the theoretical differences between one or other it's also frustrating at the GM because you want players to make decisions and feel good about them even though sometimes they made the wrong one. It's missing all the feel-good failures well simultaneously stripping the sense of accomplishment from success.

I don't know if any of that made any sense so I'm kind of in a rambling mood today.

[Theodoxus]

Question: is stacking bonuses in this way really a problem?

A problem for whom? WotC? Definitely. Removing stacking bonuses was a huge design goal for 5E. Dumbing them down into Advantage was the only move they really had available that both simplified the math so the game wasn't as crunchy, while simultaneously keeping Bounded Accuracy intact. If your To Hit was ultimately capped at +14 (+5 Mod, +6 PB, +3 magic weapon); ACs are likewise capped at 33, since a nat 20 is going to hit regardless. It doesn't matter how many d20s you get to roll, your best non-critical roll is going to be a 19.

Is it a problem for me? Only when advantage is overplayed. Especially since it doesn't stack. I'd rather get an option to choose a +5 bonus over advantage; I don't want to get as crunchy as 3.PF(2), else I'd try to find some folks to play them. I just want additional options; codified would be nice, though I'm happy to run it homebrew too. Then you can decide just how hard you want it to be to hit your monsters and modify them too.

(how the heck did paladin get made along side barbarian??)

Might be apocryphal, but from what I've heard, Barbarian was (one of) the first class(es) built and tested in D&DNext and basically once Berserker was finalized, WotC washed their hands and went on to build other classes. It's why Frenzy deals exhaustion damage, and things like Divine Smite and Horde Breaker, which are arguably more useful, more often, don't.

Even if it isn't true, it definitely feels true - and it would have been nice if Barbarian got a final once over taking all the other (sub)class abilities into consideration.

I think Barbarian was supposed to be the 'let the folks who want a simple class that just rages and recklessly attacks all day long' class that Champion ended up taking because rage isn't usable enough for such a simple concept and RA requires more micromanaging than is otherwise deemed acceptable. Barbi definitely needs the new coat of paint that D&Done is bringing... and arguably more.

[Dork_Forge]

Party isn't set; there's multiple DM's and players have multiple characters. So sometimes there might be support, but sometimes not.

But yeah, I also prefer to not rely on those measures

Ahh, then Res Wis makes a lot more sense, never been in a rotating party before but it must make some parts of the game tough.

(how the heck did paladin get made along side barbarian??)

If this is referring to my table I just encouraged them to make whatever they wanted to play. In this case the Barbarian/Rogue made a 'bull in a china shop' character whilst the other player came from 2e but never had the stats to be a Paladin.

I try to discourage the whole 'what roles need to be filled' default at my tables to put emphasis on personal preference. In 5e the games work out regardless.

[Skrum]

A problem for whom? WotC? Definitely. Removing stacking bonuses was a huge design goal for 5E. Dumbing them down into Advantage was the only move they really had available that both simplified the math so the game wasn't as crunchy, while simultaneously keeping Bounded Accuracy intact. If your To Hit was ultimately capped at +14 (+5 Mod, +6 PB, +3 magic weapon); ACs are likewise capped at 33, since a nat 20 is going to hit regardless. It doesn't matter how many d20s you get to roll, your best non-critical roll is going to be a 19.

Right, I know that was the design goal for 5e. My point is they succeeded! There's hardly any additional sources of numerical bonuses beyond ability score, prof bonus, and magic weapons. I could probably name them right here -

1) archery fighting style
2) bless
3) technically the magic weapon spells? But those spells suck and are redundant with actual magic weapons
4) channel divinity: guided strike
5) ummm
6) wild magic barb's bolstering magic
6) yeah I can't think of any others

My question of Is This Necessary is why would someone have to make additional rules about stacking bonuses? They're already not in the game.

[Skrum]

If this is referring to my table I just encouraged them to make whatever they wanted to play. In this case the Barbarian/Rogue made a 'bull in a china shop' character whilst the other player came from 2e but never had the stats to be a Paladin.

Oh no I mean on WotC's part. How did barb go to print. It's not like the class is non-functional, it's just got the most glaring and frustrating holes.

I try to discourage the whole 'what roles need to be filled' default at my tables to put emphasis on personal preference. In 5e the games work out regardless.

Same! I love character op, but party op annoys me. Unless character backstories ties them together and explains why they're so synergistic.

[Dr.Samurai]

If the class only seems to function by dumping all your universal picks into a single ability score, or in the case of barbarian looking at ways to add additional damage riders because the core chassis lacking it, then that's the issue. Well there's a more complex issue where you can't have the same pool of choices at level four then at level 16 and expected them not feel like some free will paradox.

I don't think anyone is saying the barbarian can't function with a 16 Strength. Really this thread is all about how it *feels* to have to make these choices.

My fighter makes three, sometimes four, attack rolls per turn. We have around 4-5 encounters per day, and they might average around 4-5 turns, as some of them are slogs and our party isn't the online D&D fantasy swat team meme that finishes everyone off in 2 turns.

Point being statistically I will fail an attack roll by 1 point around 4 times per campaign day. Meanwhile, the wisdom saves are no where close to being as frequent.

The effects are disproportional, both in impact and in frequency.

In my opinion the barbarian should be shaking off these types of effects regardless of their wisdom because that's what the class image is. They're not just physically tough they have the ability to endure all types of strength so if a level one spell is just as likely to take you out of the fight at level one than at level 20 something has fundamentally gone wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree. Rage used to give you a morale bonus to mind-affecting effects. Not sure why they changed that.

[renzdog]

You have 13 charisma, Have you considered 1 level of sorcerer? Wild magic and divine soul each have a level 1 ability that can help with saving throws?

[Skrum]

You have 13 charisma, Have you considered 1 level of sorcerer? Wild magic and divine soul each have a level 1 ability that can help with saving throws?

Not a bad idea. Outside chance I make it to level 12....barb 6 rogue 5 sorc 1 has some merit. Wild magic sorc would fit thematically for sure.

[CTurbo]

I took 1 level of Wild Magic Sorc on my Wild Magic Barb at level 7 and it's been a lot of fun.

Of course my Barb had a 20Str from level 1.

OTHER than lacking strong mental saves, Barbs are already built pretty defensively. Offensive capability is where the focus should be put on during character development most of the time. That or boosting the nonexistent utility.

I would rather have a low, but consistent offensive output though in most cases.

For example, I'd rather have a 20 Str and deal 1+5 damage with a +8 to hit than a 16 Str and deal 1d10+3 damage with a +6 to hit.

Also, it's fun to sometimes have glaring character flaws. I'd swap back to 18 Str if it were me.

[Schwann145]

I wholeheartedly agree. Rage used to give you a morale bonus to mind-affecting effects. Not sure why they changed that.

That would be that very complicated math that no one can handle these days.

[Silly Name]

For the record, I am currently playing a level 12 Paladin with 16 STR and a +1 weapon, and 18 CHA. I probably whiff attacks a bit more often than the Rogue/Fighter with 20 DEX, but overall I don't feel like I'm constantly missing or failing to deal damage.

Sure, Paladin has a higher floor than Barbarian, and my chances to hit are empowered by Bless being pretty much the first thing I do on every serious encounter, but I think Skrum just got "unlucky" in that immediately after respeccing for lower STR, he failed a couple rolls by *exactly* the 1 point he gave up. In the long term, the difference may end up averaging out, and with added sources of bonuses to hit (Advantage, Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Magic Weapons), they'll breach the gap, hopefully.

[Silly Name]

I wholeheartedly agree. Rage used to give you a morale bonus to mind-affecting effects. Not sure why they changed that.

They stuck that on the Path of the Berserker level 6 feature. Which... yeah. I would rather it be a base class feature.

[Arkhios]

That would be that very complicated math that no one can handle these days.

Pfft. "kids" these days. Back in the day, I had dozens of characters that had to count dozens of cirmcumstantial bonuses and/or penalties from several sources each, and I was fine. And I didn't even graduate with advanced mathematics syllabus, or whatever.

[stoutstien]

I don't think anyone is saying the barbarian can't function with a 16 Strength. Really this thread is all about how it *feels* to have to make these choices.

My fighter makes three, sometimes four, attack rolls per turn. We have around 4-5 encounters per day, and they might average around 4-5 turns, as some of them are slogs and our party isn't the online D&D fantasy swat team meme that finishes everyone off in 2 turns.

Point being statistically I will fail an attack roll by 1 point around 4 times per campaign day. Meanwhile, the wisdom saves are no where close to being as frequent.

The effects are disproportional, both in impact and in frequency.

My WIP has a fairly simple solution to this as the barbarian type class (risk/reward disruptive melee type) practically always deals damage even on misses when they go full offense. Makes them dangerous to ignore. Help that they build up as they fight to a point so you really don't want to be around them unless you think you can survive until they run out of steam.

When you have a more stable baseline that works regardless of further investment you actually feel like it's a choice.